toughening the mandate later if need be, but get the inspectors in
now. Trying to negotiate a new mandate is only going to delay the
inspectors." What's the flaw in that argument?
MR. FLEISCHER: The flaw in the argument is that that's a formula
for inaction and potential disaster, because it hasn't worked for 10
years. So the President thinks what is vital is for the world not to
repeat its mistakes, and to send people in under an inspection regime
that everyone knows is flawed, that will lead to failure, that will
lead to more games where the inspectors aren't inspectors, they're
visitors who get run around. They're not inspectors under the existing
regime. And that's why I point out to you what Kofi Annan said this
morning in New York, when he himself cited the need to make sure we do
not repeat the weaknesses of the past.
People are listening to the President. They're listening in
diplomatic circles, and these diplomatic circles take time. The
President went to New York knowing that he would not get action out of
the United Nations overnight. The United Nations is proving that. But
the President is going to continue to work through the United Nations.
Q Even if you acknowledge that the existing rules would only
lead to additional mistakes being repeated, is there not a benefit to
be gained from having inspectors looking around there now to see what
they can find?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a real risk that would be taken in doing
that, and showing Saddam Hussein that he's in charge, that he can run
people around again, and that the world will not act. After he's done
it for so long, this would be akin to the world saying, we don't mean
what we say, you can do it again. You can give the visitors the
runaround, and the world will do nothing. The President thinks that
has happened for too long already.
Q You've spoken of the need for diplomacy to take some time.
Why wait for it? Why not get the inspectors back in?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks they should go in under the
new auspices, so they can do their job. If they go in under the
current regime, it is -- it is a fool's errand to call them
inspectors. They would be nothing more than tourists who get a
runaround.
Q Ari --
MR. FLEISCHER: The newest reporter from the New York Times, I
see. Mr. Kensolving.
Q There was a vacant seat and I offered to get up and this nice
lady from the Times insisted --
Q So then give me your question. Can I ask a question?
(Laughter.)
Q You'll come back, won't you, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, you are not allowed to refer to somebody as
a "nice lady" and not agree to her request. (Laughter.) So we will go
to Elizabeth and then, at the end of the briefing, we will come back.
Q Given what we were just talking about, are you still expecting
support from the Russians in the Security Council?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is optimistic, as Secretary Powell
said he is optimistic, that at the end of the day the world will see
the issue as he laid it out in New York, because the President cannot
imagine the United Nations wants to make itself irrelevant.
Q Is he going to be talking to Mr. Putin again?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the conversations are continuing at many
levels and I always do my best to try to report to you on the calls.
Now, he hasn't spoken to him since the last time I reported it to you.
But there are many conversations going on through the United Nations,
through other diplomatic levels, through the State Department, as you
would expect.
Connie.
Q Thank you. In the U.N. or any other coalition you would form,
are you asking for financial and military support, as well as just
verbal support? And also, if there is regime change, would you expect
that oil contracts with other countries are canceled by Iraq at that
point in time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speculate about any outcomes with that type
of specificity. And I would say that the President has made it clear
that it is important for the United Nations to act, through the
Security Council. If they don't, the President has made perfectly
plain that the United States and Britain and others will be part of a
wide-ranging coalition that will help protect the world, and will do so
in many ways. I can't go into a delineation of all of them. And we'll
see what the events develop.
Q In the administration's view, are there any circumstances
under which Saddam Hussein could remain in power?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that anybody who thinks that the conditions
that the President laid out in New York, which are the conditions that
the world must honor in order to protect the peace, are actions that
Saddam Hussein has shown any willingness to engage in over the last ten
years. So unless somebody thinks that all of a sudden Saddam Hussein
would change his ways, would become a reformer, would become a person
who believes in freedom, who would cease his militaristic approach, I
think they're going down a path that no one in the world agrees with.
Q You're saying it's not likely that he would do what is
necessary to remain in power, but --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know -- I don't know of a single person who
has come to any type of judgment that Saddam Hussein would do that.
And that is why the world faces such a threat from this man.
Q But the administration's policy, if I understand it, has been
that regime change is necessary because that is the only way, or the
surest way, to make him disarm. But that there are other ways, as you
pointed out in the President's "if" statements in his U.N. speech, that
there are other ways that disarmament could be accomplished.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you have two issues going on at the same
time. You have the issues before the United Nations Security Council,
which involve the world coming together and saying that the resolutions
that passed that focus on disarmament, focus on abandonment of
hostility as a way to handle relations with neighbors, cessation of
repression of people within Iraq -- all those issues -- weapons of mass
destruction development -- need to be addressed per those U.N. Security
Council resolutions.
Separately and apart, but equally important, you have the United
States Congress' statement from 1998, which is likely to be echoed
shortly in a big bipartisan vote in the House and Senate in the next
week or so, saying that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime. That, verbatim, are the words of the Congress,
signed by President Clinton in 1998.
Q So quite apart from efforts to disarm and whether or not they
succeed, regime change is still in place -- regardless of what happens
on the disarmament front?
MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is the law of the land for the United
States, as spoken by the Congress, signed by President Clinton and
supported, of course, by President Bush.
Q Ari, yesterday in the Rose Garden, Senator Warner harkened
back to the '91 Gulf War resolution and he said, Mr. President, we
delivered for your father and we'll deliver for you. I guess I had
never thought of it in that way. Does the President think of this as a
blood feud?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and I don't think that's at all what Senator
Warner was saying, no. I think Senator Warner is pointing out that for
11 years, Saddam Hussein has been a constant menace to people who love
freedom. And that's why the United States Congress in 1991 authorized
the use of force, because Saddam Hussein invaded a sovereign country of
Kuwait. That's what I think Senator Warner's reference was to. And
the point is that, since that war ended, Saddam Hussein has engaged in
even more of a militaristic approach by seeking to build up his weapons
of mass destruction in absolute and total violation of the United
Nations resolutions he swore to agree by, and the armistice that he
signed as a result -- as an agreement to end the war.
Q Ari, could I follow and ask you, it's been about three months,
I think, since the President gave a White House news conference. A lot
has
happened since then, a lot of questions on the mind of the public.
Does the President think it would be healthy for the debate to come
down here and answer those questions to the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President enjoyed the
questions that were put to him in the pool events this week. I can
look at many of you in here who have questioned him. Mr. Roberts, I
recall your question. And so I think the President regularly does take
questions from the press. We always take a look at the issue of the
news conference. I know there's widespread dissatisfaction in the
press about the number of news conferences, formal sessions the
President has. But I think the President is very open and accessible,
takes questions very often in a variety of ways and in a variety of
settings and will continue to do so. We'll always take a look at the
possibility of a news conference and keep you informed if we do.
Q Why isn't he holding regular news conferences?
MR. FLEISCHER: Paula?
Q Sorry, Helen.
With respect to the administration's economic policy, as you know,
former Vice President Gore yesterday widely criticized your current
course, called for a mid-course correction, suggested a stimulus
package which would include extending unemployment benefits after they
run out in December when Congress is not in town. What is the White
House reaction to some of their suggestions which, as you know, the
President himself has proposed, particularly the small business tax
relief?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I addressed this earlier. I was asked about
a UI extension and I talked about it earlier, so there's really no
change from what I said just before.
Q But as you know, it runs out in December, when Congress isn't
in town. So is there an urgency to get something on the books before
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, we're going to continue to
work with Congress on all issues involving the economy and restoration
of growth. But the President thinks that the number one, most concrete
thing that can be done now is to create jobs. And Congress has within
its power right now the ability to create some 300,000 jobs,
particularly in the hard-hat and construction industry.
Q But, as you know, that's just one income sector and
unemployment benefits would extend in a broad spectrum to others that
are unemployed.
MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number of issues that have been talked
about on the Hill that can create growth and opportunities for people
so they don't have to collect unemployment, so they can collect
paychecks. And there remain a number of conversations on the Hill
about all these topics.
Q Secondly -- I'm sorry -- but --
MR. FLEISCHER: Thirdly.
Q -- point -- thirdly -- that was made in his speech yesterday
is that it would not be unprecedented, particularly in a time when the
deficit is moving upward, to increase taxes to offset previous tax
cuts. And the precedent he set was that of President Ronald Reagan,
who in '82 did increase taxes to offset previous tax cuts. Is that
something the administration at any point in time would ever consider
doing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there is no question that there is a
growing movement inside the Democratic Party to raise taxes, and
President Bush is going to resist that. I think many Democrats have
tried to talk around the issue by saying they're not really raising
taxes, they're just stopping the tax cuts that have been promised the
American people from ever going into place. And that's like saying to
an American worker that if your boss says you're about to get a pay
raise next year and he takes it back -- well, you were never going to
get that pay raise anyway, so you won't miss it.
Well, that's taking money away from somebody that was promised to
them. And when Washington does that, it's called a tax hike. And the
President will strongly fight those who believe that we should raise
taxes.
Q So are you saying President Reagan, then, did that?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question President Reagan raised taxes
in 1982. That's a historical fact. He did cut taxes much larger in
1981.
Q Ari, on homeland security, if you don't get a bill, what would
the specific impact be on the government's antiterrorism efforts? And
also, how long will it take you to ratchet up next year to try to get
another bill through?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the impact is going to be that many
of the people whose jobs are really security-focused and
antiterrorism-focused will not be able to come together and do a better
job at protecting the country. They currently do a very good job for
America in their various agencies.
But it is the widespread judgment of many people that we can do
better. There is more that we can do. And by bringing people from
Customs, from Border Patrol, from the INS, from the various federal
agencies, into one entity whose sole mission now is to protect the
homeland from the risk we face in this new world of terrorism, that all
these efforts would be enhanced if they were together in one office, in
one department, in one agency. And so it would be a denial to the
American people of additional protections at a time when we need
additional protections, because of the increasing threat.
Q But additional, you don't think we'll be less secure. I mean,
are there any specific things that you're --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, no, there's no question we're less -- failure
to pass it would mean we'd be less secure than if we were able to
create the new department. There's no question that that's the
President's opinion. That's why the President felt the status quo was
not good enough. These people work very hard in their existing
agencies to protect the country. But times change, and the federal
government needs to change along with the times. And the threats that
we face in the 20th century are not the same ones we face now in the
21st century, vis a vis terrorism. And September 11th proved that.
And it would be very risky for the federal government to return to the
pre-September 11th approach to how to protect the homeland. And that's
why the President has urged Congress, and the Senate particularly, to
finish its business and not to leave until they finish work on the
department of homeland security.
Q If you don't get a bill, will you still push for it next
year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think the President even wants to
face the prospect of not getting a bill, because that would be such a
retreat from the security measures that need to be taken to protect the
country.
Q Ari, in an op/ed piece in the Washington Post today, Sandy
Berger suggests dropping the threat of military action from the
resolution the United States is presenting to the U.N. Security
Council. Berger believes this would help its passage. Would the
President accept such a compromise?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that the resolution
before the United Nations must include three things, and again those
three things are to state that Iraq is not in compliance with its
existing obligations to the world; what Iraq must do to come into
compliance; and what the consequences will be to Iraq for failure to
comply. The problem, in the President's judgment, is that if you
remove that third provision, Iraq will have no incentive, none, none
whatsoever, to change its behavior and disarm. They will continue in
the same cat and mouse games they played throughout the '90s.
Okay, Ron and then Les.
Q For the folks who have to look ahead to this trip that begins
tomorrow, can you tell us how much of it is political, how much of it
is a little rest and relaxation.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will have a trip tomorrow that's
focused on the gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts, and then an
election in New Hampshire. He will remain for the weekend in Maine, in
Kennebunkport. And we'll keep you informed about any official
activities, if there are any, while the President is there.
Q -- any speeches to talk about Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The radio address, I will let you know tomorrow
what the radio address will be on.
Lester.
Q Ari, to rephrase Jacobo's question, the President surely is
not opposed to his fellow Republicans going to the U.S. Supreme Court
over this Lautenberg in for Torricelli scheme, okayed by this New
Jersey court, which was so recently reversed by the Supreme Court
regarding what they tried to do to the Boy Scouts.
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I have no changes to what I said earlier.
Q The President, as you probably know -- I didn't see you there
-- but the President was tremendously well received last night. In
fact it was a historic financial record-breaker in Baltimore for
Congressman Bob Ehrlich's campaign for governor. But Ehrlich's rival,
Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who has strongly
campaigned for school character education, has invited Bill Clinton.
And my question is this: Does the White House think that this will be
as good for character development in Maryland as if she had invited
Senator Torricelli? What is your viewpoint on this, Ari? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I think the President addressed the issues
that he raised last night in his remarks about the importance of that
race.
Q Were you there?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, but I hang on every word that the President
says, and so I watch it on internal White House TV. Thank you.
Q Ari, I just -- want to come back to one thing very quickly.
The three pillars of the U.N. resolution that you just outlined, is the
President willing to accept anything less than that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear in his speech to
the U.N. that this is a test not only of whether Saddam Hussein will
disarm, so the world will know that safety can be protected. It's also
a test of whether the United Nations will be relevant, whether the
United Nations will be the League of Nations or the United Nations.
It is, after all, the United Nations that Saddam Hussein is
thwarting by his deliberate disregard for their resolutions. And as
Kofi Annan said this morning, we don't want to repeat the weaknesses of
the past.
Q But is he willing to accept anything less than the three
pillars that you outlined?
MR. FLEISCHER: Those are the three pillars that the President has
outlined, and that is what the President expects, and that is what the
President will fight for. And that's what the President expects.
Thank you.
END 1:13 P.M. EDT